Be prepared.....its dangerous out there

All the time.

They might not be visible to you right now, but the media tells us that somebody somewhere, right now is in a world of trouble. It is difficult for me to write and advise in my field without sounding like a doom monger or trying to frighten people. That is not of course my intention.

But the inescapable fact is that your life is complicated and something could happen to you.

My studies found proof that most people are not remotely prepared in case of emergencies, some people did not even know how to turn off the water supply in their OWN home!

Keeping decent records is a long established way of being better prepared in case of an emergency and if that emergency never happens…well…..

Thank your lucky stars!

Download your personal information template now and be prepared for any eventuality!

By Ian Anderson, MSc Trauma and Disaster Management Studies, The University of Lincoln.

My background involved working in developing countries in East Africa which fostered interest in matters related to being prepared when calamity strikes. East African planning and preparation against natural and manmade disasters is literally a life and death business and most have more pressing priorities than protecting any important personal information.

Most in the developed world are lucky enough to be projected from physical calamity by expensive infrastructure and efficient emergency services, although protecting our personal information is our own responsibility. However, countries in the developed world do not escape their share of emergencies where a degree of prior planning and preparation can make a difference to a persons resilience.

Much is made these days of resilience, which is related to our ability to recover from a disastrous event. It could be argued that the type of events that we face in the developed world are completely different than those faced in East Africa and you would be partly right. However, the end result is comparable, i.e. influencing our capacity to recover to a pre event state.

My research showed quite clearly that a significant number of people had made no plans in case of emergency. General research indicates that a degree of planning and simple preparation does improve a persons ability to survive, both the actual event and also its aftermath.

It could be argued then that generally we need to plan more in case of emergencies. We generally understand the basics of keeping a stock of food, water, torches and suitable clothing to hand should we face an emergency but what about our important personal information and paperwork?

People get into trouble every day, often through no fault of their own and sometimes, they don’t survive. Imagine, if you can bear it, the effect of this sudden departure on your family and friends. Would they cope? Add to this the fact that all those little jobs that you were ‘going to get around to one day’ will never be realized.

Think about your affairs for a moment. Is everything in order, logical to find and clear to someone who may not be familiar with your system or records? Research shows that few peoples records are clear and organized at any particular point.

In light of my research findings and after bad experiences while moving house (and country), I decided to design a simple record system that would build up over time and give me an instant snapshot of all my important personal information; account numbers; customer numbers, contact details, renewal dates and payment details, location of physical items etc. I called it a “personal information template” and you can download your template here.

Here are some extracts from the study that I carried out on how prepared people were in case of emergency.

Abstract

This study looked at attitudes towards planning for unexpected emergencies, both at work and in the home. It questioned people who had a responsibility for other peoples safety should an emergency arise in the workplace. Questions were asked about the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” that was distributed nationwide in 2004 and any personal arrangements or plans that were in place should such an emergency occur. It also asked questions about first aid and emergency training both at home and in the workplace.

The study utilized a questionnaire of 19 questions formatted into a brochure style leaflet to aid familiarity and ease of completion. This was especially important, as most groups included in the study were people with heavy professional commitments. Random samples of people were taken from local organizations and institutions. Questionnaires were then analyzed using the statistical program SPSS.

Age only marginally affected a respondents fear of being involved in an emergency, with the 60+ age group showing the least fear. Age did however, affect the likelihood of reading the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know”, with the youngest group not reading it at all. The age group most likely to read the leaflet was the 30-39 age group (72%), with other age groups within the 54% – 68% range. No gender imbalance was found regarding fear of involvement in an emergency (within 2%) and each gender was equally likely to have read the leaflet, (within 4%).

The study found that although 58% of people had seen the leaflet, only 31% claimed to have read it thoroughly and this left 42%, who had not seen the leaflet. The leaflet was found to be useful and informative amongst those who had seen it and it led 90% to think about their own families and emergency arrangements. 65% of respondents who read the leaflet thoroughly, learned from it.

Regarding emergency information in the home, 55% were dissatisfied and professionally 65% were dissatisfied. Over 96% supported first aid training in schools and the workplace. The generic message from government for most kinds of emergencies is “go in: stay in: tune in”. However, 57% of respondents had not heard of this message and 50% did not have access to a battery-powered radio (recommended by government in case power supplies are disrupted).

The study concluded that a significant proportion of respondents were not concerned with personal preparations in case of emergencies and that few people feared being involved in a major emergency. Less than 6% of respondents report being quite or very worried about being involved in an emergency. Almost 59% of respondents were “a little worried” but a significant 35.5% claimed to be “not worried at all”. Correspondingly, 89% of respondents had no plans to deal with potential emergencies and 64% were unable to provide basic necessities for themselves for more than 24 hours. It could be argued that this may lead to a poor appreciation of personal emergency planning benefits and could lead to personal vulnerabilities should an emergency occur.

Key words: emergency; personal; information; disaster; planning; preparation; attitudes; safety.

Introduction

This is a study to determine how informed people are about emergency situations and their personal level of preparation. The study examines how effective the nationally mailed leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government (2004), was in informing people. The study looked for changes in practice, both domestic and professionally, following reading of the leaflet. The study also looked at effective ways of informing people on matters of emergency planning, for example: “Should first aid be taught in schools?”

The study collected data utilizing a questionnaire targeted at respondents who have a responsibility for others during an emergency; people such as teachers, the police, the fire service, care organizations and other service providers. These data were evaluated and analyzed to find gaps in the information given to the public; to find relationships between the variables asked and to seek solutions in order to influence future policy.

This study also explored if people knew how to react in a manner that is likely to promote their survival and that of others around them. It could be argued that in the event of a major local or national disaster such as a train accident or terrorist strike, that it is possible that local emergency services could be overwhelmed, either for a short period or more. It could then be argued that this time is crucial for the victims of the disaster, both in terms of immediate medical first aid and in the stabilization of the environment in which the emergency services will operate. It cannot be determined whether or not the emergency services will cope with a disaster affecting mass casualties, but it could be argued that having well informed, prepared people at the scene, would enable the emergency services to carry out their duties quicker and more successfully. This could save lives.

Benefits and Objectives of Research

The benefits and objectives from the information sought in this research are as follows: -

Assessing the effectiveness of the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know”

By questioning respondents, it was determined how many actually read the leaflet and how many discarded it. These statistics could be used to assess the total number of people likely to have read the leaflet amongst similar groups of people nation wide. It could be argued to be relatively unusual for the government to mail an emergency preparedness leaflet. Therefore, it may be argued that analyzing the effectiveness of such a leaflet to achieve its aims of informing the public, was a valid study and could help to shape methodology for future publications.

Improved knowledge on an individuals perception of emergency planning within the community

By questioning the respondents about their understanding of what constitutes emergency planning, it may be possible to correct any misunderstandings and inform the public in future as to what preparations and plans are sensible to make. It may also find links between the responsibilities of the authorities and the responsibilities of the community and how they might be better integrated towards a successful outcome in dealing with disaster and promoting life saving actions.

Improved knowledge on how prepared communities may be for emergencies or disasters

By questioning respondents, it may be possible to evaluate a state of readiness and to analyse how much risk a community feels it is exposed to. It could be argued that some communities face a greater risk in areas of high population density, near large industrial or nuclear facilities or in areas know to flood. Isolated areas and rural communities also face risk, often of a completely different nature.

Improved knowledge of a community’s emergency planning needs

By questioning respondents and seeking comments and observations from members of the community it may be possible to add to the knowledge of a local area and make changes in policy to tailor emergency plans to cover specific scenarios based on local knowledge from previous events or experiences. Knowing a communities needs could also be useful for agencies responsible for informing the public about what plans are in place by local authorities and the government.

Empowerment of individuals within the community

Educating and informing individuals and giving them the confidence to apply learnt skills, could enable them to self-help should the emergency service be overwhelmed during a national, regional or local emergency. This could be argued to save time when the emergency services do arrive on scene and could save lives.

Rationale

The writer has a particular interest in this topic as it relates to personal work carried out in developing countries for an international aid agency. On several occasions, actions by individuals and communities were observed that caused problems over time with infrastructure and caused loss of life during a serious flood. Basic community led planning and preparation could have helped the communities resilience (UK Resilience 2006).

The resources available in the UK make it much better prepared for all kind of emergencies, however there are parallels between the writers experience overseas and the situation in the UK. It could be argued that practical knowledge exists to help people make basic plans regardless of location, however access to such information is often “on demand” and individuals or communities are not aware of its existence. Organization of available resources, both physical and material, can help the right course of action to unfold upon receiving news that a catastrophic event is imminent, this practical information could help to prevent loss of life and assist the emergency services on the scene.

A few words on Resilience

The ability of civilians and communities to recover from major emergencies is now termed “Resilience”; and according to the BBC (2004) the term resilience was adopted for emergency planning after the fuel crisis in 2000 and the foot and mouth crisis in 2001. The UK Resilience website does provide information and advice on a wide range of emergency issues (UK Resilience 2006), and explains that The Capabilities Programme is the core framework through which the Government is seeking to build resilience across all parts of the UK. The aim of the Capabilities Programme is to ensure that a robust infrastructure of response is in place to deal rapidly, effectively and flexibly with the consequences of civil devastation and widespread disaster inflicted as a result of conventional or non-conventional disruptive activity (UK Resilience 2006). It could be argued that this type of information could marginalize vulnerable members of the community who may not have access to the Internet, for example: the elderly, disabled and those on a low income (National Statistics 2002).

The terrorist attack on the USA, now known as 9/11 (Kean 2002), and the recent attack on the London transport system in July 2005 (Naughton 2005), however have placed the security and resilience of the UK under intense scrutiny. Phrases are appearing in the media such as Civil Contingencies, Homeland Security, Vigilance, Tolerance and Citizenship; these are all linked to the concept of resilience. People who live in London may be better prepared, since London has long been targeted by terrorist activity, the IRA for example (English 2003). It could also be argued that it is important not to focus on terrorist threats when trying to assess dangers facing a community, since a greater amount of emergencies are natural and man made in nature. It could be argued that far more people die every year from flooding, fire, earthquakes, tsunami, famine, poor health or poverty for example.

Benefits of Being Informed

The issue at the heart of any disaster is loss according to Hodgkinson and Stewart (1998). Therefore, it could be argued that preventing the loss of life; of loved ones, property, liberty, and even future aspirations is the primary objective of any emergency planning process.

This research studied the effectiveness of the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government 2004) by measuring the practical usefulness of such a publication and the level of retention of anything learned from it. It could be argued that during an emergency, it is education, training and instinct that will take over and guide that person out of danger. Harvey (2004), founder of Headstart, a public emergency training program, states that training can make a difference between life and death and gives people the confidence to tackle emergency situations while waiting for the emergency services to arrive. Stuart (2002) also writes that during a disaster the biggest risk to your survival is having no plan at all because this leaves people at the mercy of events, which during a disaster is the worst possible scenario (Stuart 2002).

Having the right information may help a community cope with an emergency, working independently and alongside the emergency services but importantly, the concept of resilience ties together the whole process, pre-emergency planning, responses during the actual event itself and crucially, post-emergency. Post emergency support on rebuilding shattered lives and infrastructure is vital to a community surviving, not just the disaster but also the long-term survival once the rescue/emergency workers have finished their work at the scene.

The Emergency Management Australia (EMA 2003) team published its findings after the 9/11 attacks on the USA and the Bali bombings, highlighting many aspects of community involvement in a large-scale urban incident. Participants considered that including the community was a particularly important element in emergency management. Under the heading “Localise awareness”, it states that a community education strategy is needed to improve community and individual understanding of their roles and responsibilities in an emergency (EMA 2003).

This means that information about what individuals can do to help themselves and others should be used to create awareness. Preparedness and mitigation measures then can be easily implemented at a local level by encouraging individuals to recognise local area risks. The EMA (2003) report also showed that education was seen as being essential to increasing community involvement; when communities are aware of risks, their mitigation and planning for all hazards would greatly help emergency responders. As ordinary citizens are usually the first on the scene in any emergency, participants believed that providing the community with a better understanding of what they can and should do in an emergency would greatly help responders (EMA 2003). The Australian emergency services also believed that public awareness campaigns to educate the community to prepare and respond appropriately might help to save lives and reduce fear and anxiety (EMA 2003).

Public Response

Helsloot and Ruitenberg (2004) state that “citizens often prove to be the most effective emergency personnel” and that “disaster evaluation invariably shows that that most lives are actually saved by the average citizen” (Helsloot and Ruitenberg 2004 p98). It could be argued that the media often portray the most dramatic scenes from a disaster site, which could be argued to lead to a misconception of everyone at the scene being in a state of panic. Perry and Lindel (2003) state that panic only affects a small number of people and only for a short period. (Perry & Lindel 2003). Helsloot and Ruitenberg (2004) also state that a number of countries are introducing “citizen response” involving training of local people in life saving skills (Helsloot and Ruitenberg 2004). FEMA (1999) follow this by stating that such training equips people to provide first aid after disasters until professional aid arrives.

Discussion

Background and literature

It might be argued that the main output of this study was to determine how likely was a person to influence their own chances of survival; when faced with a catastrophic, life-changing event. This study examined attitudes to determine what people felt or thought about personal planning in case of emergencies.

Reviewing available literature found that little information was directed towards citizens in the UK as a matter of course, either through schools or further education and it appeared to the writer that the attitudes of people regarding emergencies had been little studied. Research appears to centre mostly on psychological reactions post trauma or research that seeks to improve the capacity and capability of the emergency services. In addition, little research was found on what people”s expectations were regarding the ability of the emergency services to cope. It could be argued that prior to the World Trade Centre incident known as 9/11, (for background Kean 2002) expectations were high and confidence in existing arrangements at a strategic, tactical and operational levels were also high. It was the writer”s opinion that the events in New York on 9/11/2001 altered the parameters of scale somewhat, with a realisation for some people, that events could overwhelm the existing structure of emergency services.

However, in 2005/6 this study found that few people feared being involved in a major emergency, which could be argued to lead to poor appreciation of emergency planning and its possible benefits; especially as the literature review found many experts citing improved survival rates amongst informed and proactive people, who take appropriate action during the aftermath of a major event. Respondents may already feel safe and that their behaviour is what Tulloch and Lupton (2003) call “risk reductive”, where general access to education and information makes people confident about controlling most risks (Tulloch and Lupton 2003 p78).

Out of the 31% of respondents who thoroughly read the leaflet, “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government 2004), some 65% claimed to have learned something new and out of the 27% of respondents who skimmed through the leaflet, 59% claimed to have learned something new. It could be argued that this indicates that existing knowledge about what to do during an emergency is at a low level as the leaflet was designed as a simple guide to cover the basics. It could be argued that this indicates that people have a capacity to be better informed and that their existing knowledge has gaps or could be improved, especially as 90% of respondents claimed to be concerned about their own families after reading the leaflet.

Some respondents indicated that they were happy with the amount of information they received regarding emergencies at work, however, it could be argued that this preparation was not carried across to the personal home environment, as virtually no one had actually made a home plan on what each member of the family should do in case of emergencies.

Virtually all of the respondents who had not read the leaflet gave the simple answer of “not having seen it”, even though it was mailed to virtually every household in the UK. Almost 30% of respondents had no store of basic food and water in the home and a further 30% could only manage a day or so. Most respondents could isolate the utilities in their home but this did leave 12% to 18% of people who could not isolate one or more in case of emergency, damage to supply or contamination.

Brussels based Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; CRED (2006) and Ben (2006) argue that incidence’s of disaster and emergencies have increased dramatically; tripling since 1970, affecting 245 million people every year. Possibly, it could be argued that the UK lags behind more turbulent countries in the need to prepare its citizens for survival during emergencies. However, many people in the UK may be called upon to know a few basic skills at some point in their lives. For example, the following activities could all potentially lead to someone getting into difficulties where a little knowledge could help or even preserve life, until professional assistance arrives: – if you drive a car, look after elderly relatives, live near a river or lake, live near industry, use public transport, use tall buildings, live near an airport, train station or a busy road, enjoy active sports, walking in the countryside away from the road, DIY in the home or garden, if you are responsible for children in or away from the home or go on foreign holidays, especially to countries with potentially inadequate health services. All these categories, amongst others are potential situations away from the work place, with its regulated guidelines and protocols, where simple first aid or basic practical knowledge on a variety of emergency situations could be an advantage. More than 96% of respondents felt that first aid training was a good idea both at school and at home; 88% of respondents, claimed to have a first aid kit along with 64% who knew how to employ it. This result bucks the national trend as according to the St Johns Ambulance (2005), only 10% of teachers are trained in First Aid and less then 5% of children receive any degree of First Aid training; this might be explained by the notion that the respondents feel that they have some knowledge of First Aid, gained from other sources, but do not have St Johns Ambulance accreditation. St Johns Ambulance also reports that learning First Aid is often the first step in a child”s development towards good citizenship (St Johns Ambulance 2005).

The leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government 2004) highlights a phrase “go in: stay in: tune in”, this forms the main advice for emergencies except fire. 57% of respondents in this study had not heard of the phrase including 48% of those that had read the leaflet and 72% of respondents who had just skimmed through the leaflet and not absorbed the message. It could be argued that this is a poor result for the main general advice from the government to the public on what to do to remain safe during most emergencies and could encourage “on the spot” decision making (right or wrong) for many people.

This study could be thought of as a small baseline study into areas where little information exists about average preparations made by people in the home and highlighting public knowledge of the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government 2004). It could be argued that an increasing need for awareness should lead to the implementation of education programmes or an increase in availability in printed or visual practical information. However, the literature review of this study found little evidence of this; information is available about what to do in case of emergency, but only to those who seek it on their own initiative. There is no program at the time of writing to introduce basic emergency preparations into schools or further education, (96% respondents in this study supported first aid training); instead, there is a complete reliance on the emergency services and the authorities to provide complete solutions to even the most catastrophic events.

The study found contradictions in respondent”s answers: around 35% were not worried at all and around 59% only a little worried about involvement in an emergency; 62% had not made any emergency plans and a further 28% had only talked about it, making a total or nearly 89% with no plan whatsoever on what to do if involved in an emergency. Contrary to this however, 88% felt that making a basic plan in case of emergency was a good idea. It could be argued that this indicates that the basic desire to be prepared exists for some people who are lacking the framework or skills to find appropriate information themselves. Almost half of the respondents did not read the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government 2004) and one half of those that did, only skimmed through it. Gender and age had little influence, with men only slightly more disposed to read the leaflet along with people in the 30-40 age group and those in the age group 20-30 most likely not to read the leaflet.

It would appear that data gathered in this study indicated that there is a general culture of un-preparedness regarding emergencies which indicates that there is much work to be done to create positive attitudes towards personal emergency planning in the UK. Even after studying and writing about this subject for more than 2 years, the writer admits that even he has not yet seriously discussed with close family, basic evacuation and communication procedures should an emergency occur while the family is separated. It could be argued that this is ridiculous given that the writer has read hundreds of accounts showing the real improvement of survival chances where victims of major emergencies employ simple techniques learnt in advance.

Taking the writers experience into consideration, everyone contacted for inclusion in this study appeared to be pressured and short of spare time. Modern life could be argued to be full of needs; work, family, financial matters, officialdom, studies, health problems, technical breakdowns, vehicle matters, maintenance organisation (or DIY), holidays, hobbies, collecting, filling in, remembering to do, posting, domestic chores, and social demands amongst others, are all adept at filling gaps, professionally and personally. It could be argued that being prepared for the remote possibility of being involved in a disaster is not a priority. This preoccupation with surviving and making a living was studied by Beck (1998), who comments: – “Risk consciousness and activism are more likely to occur where the direct pressure to make a living has been relaxed or broken, that is, amongst the wealthier and more protected groups and countries”

Having determined from the study that preparations to mitigate the effects of a possible emergency are minimal on a personal level; two areas demand further study. [1] why people do not think that an emergency will affect them and [2] finding an effective methodology to promote personal preparations for emergencies. These two areas are inextricably linked, as finding the source of indifference towards emergency planning would be instrumental in finding an effective vehicle to change attitudes, values and encourage appreciation of benefits. It could be argued that effective communication, education and promotion should encourage people to make a plan, if it appears to be simple and worthwhile to implement.

Beck (1998) also noted that hazards of old were “perceptible to the senses, while the risks of civilisation today, typically escape perception ” (Beck 1998). This is an interesting concept and could offer a reason for the apparent lack of fear today, whereas historically, the spectre of early death by disease, political or religious upheaval were statistically much higher. Zimbardo and Lieppe (1991) also found that there was “crisis amnesia”, where (regarding environmental attitudes especially), the appearances of a problem disappear, so does the inward concern.

Coote (1998) advocates the involvement of informed and active citizens and goes on to explain that planning for uncertainty involves a realistic appraisal of the evidence at our disposal. This means creating laws and institutions, which safeguard and promote the principles, which are consistent with the evidence; allowing for devolved and flexible decision making. This could be argued to be unrealistic, as Beck (1998) points out; manufactured uncertainty means that everyone faces unknown and barely calculable risks. To make decisions that are consistent with the evidence, requires evidence; recent major events were unprecedented, there had been no history and therefore no protocol. 9/11 (Kean 2002) appeared to initiate changes that have tore into the field of emergency planning, upending years of stagnant legislation and obsolete “cold war” mentality. Wide ranging new legislation has been produced and introduced at all levels of government, starting with the new Civil Contingencies Act (OPSI 2004) and a plethora of forums.

Beck (1998) also wrote that as knowledge and technology race ahead, people are left in ignorance, unable to fully understand and control the machines we depend on and so less able to calculate the consequences of their going wrong. If the risks are not understood and calculable then it could be argued that being involved in the decision making process will be unproductive and behaviour will not change. According to Rubin & McNeil (1983), all behaviours are influenced by “motives”. It could be argued that there is no motive for many people to change existing behaviour and start planning what to do in case of an emergency. It could be argued that this lack of motive to plan for emergencies might be partly explained by an absence of triggers which would initiate a particular response; as most people (in the UK), have not experienced the trauma of being involved in an emergency. Adams (1998) agrees that perception of probability of some future adverse event is shaped by our previous experience.

Another viewpoint is Gross”s (1996) explanation of the need to be in control and not at the mercy of external forces . It could be argued that this need to be in control and not dictated to, could influence a person to believe that they are not vulnerable; that the emergency will always happen to someone else, as Zimbardo and Lieppe (1991) also found; attitudes were “unrealistically optimistic” and “above average” regarding health and “below average” in the risk of early death. This study also faced difficulties as Gross (1996) also points out that attitude cannot be easily measured as it is a hypothetical construct. It could be argued that a person”s attitude towards emergency preparedness may also be influenced by external factors, some of which limit the person”s true reaction. A person’s sub conscious fear of loss or pain may cause a person to deny that the situation could exist. It is possible that this fear could be used in educating people about the dangers they face, Rogers (1983) developed the “Protection Motivation Theory” which outlines people”s motivation to take action based on their fear, vulnerability and ability to overcome a particular threat.

Social desirability (Gross 1996) may also play a part in the non acceptance of risk, as it may be perceived a weakness to admit a fear of being vulnerable; this fear leads the respondent to answer a question dishonestly. Ajzen (1996) also comments that Social Pressure and Personal Evaluations will influence a person”s behaviour. Ursano et al (2000) have also found that the anticipation of a trauma or disaster is a chronic stressor for some populations.

Some of these factors could be argued to be responsible for some respondent”s denial of vulnerability. One respondent in this study, a young police man, ticked the box, “not at all worried” about being involved in a major emergency; it could be argued that this was overly optimistic considering the mans profession. Ursano et al (2000) also found that individuals vary in their assessment of threats, even when the risk is dramatic and clearly evident. It could be argued that this is evident by some people”s behaviour; drinking and driving, smoking, taking drugs, binge drinking, buying a house in a known flood plain, buying a house in a village that experiences heavy snow falls or living in an earthquake zone are a few examples of people choosing to live with increased risk.

Hypothesis

This study started out with little in the way of a theory or hypotheses, as the literature did not support or even provide quantifiable, testable theories. A valid means of supporting this study appeared to rest with Grounded Theory. Dick (2005) explains that Grounded Theory is explicitly emergent because it does not test a hypothesis. It could be argued that this means that the theory builds from data collected, that it then reflects the actual situation on the ground in real time and the resulting ideas formed are grounded in current data. Whilst Grounded Theory is usually applied to qualitative work, it could be argued that in the absence of existing, model theories, Grounded Theory provided a useful technique to explore, find and develop working theory as long as data gathered influenced the outcome. Such theories seek to emphasize particular aspects of life and as Clarke (1990) described “set the stage of sociological concern” . Glaser & Strauss (1999) also find that plausible theory can be obtained from flexible use of quantitative data.

The studies data developed a basic hypothesis that people do not have general or specific plans in place to deal with an emergency that could affect themselves or their family and that people are generally unprepared for disaster mentally and practically. Whilst it could be argued that people must be aware that disasters happen due to the extent of media coverage of such news; it could also be argued simplistically, that people often feel that disasters always happen to someone else and usually far away, therefore, not something to prioritize. It also might be that the fear of being involved in a disastrous event may be more frightening the actual threat itself, leading to denial. Based on data obtained and the discussion here, these hypotheses would appear to be valid.

Conclusions

The review of literature surrounding this field revealed that being prepared could give people the right kind of skills, which may promote life saving actions when involved in an emergency of any magnitude. This may range from death or injury of a loved one in an accident, to a large-scale technological or natural disaster. All of the literature supported the crucial importance of the first hour following such an emergency and that this could be the time in which essential life affirming action can be taken by bystanders and victims prior to the official emergency services arriving on the scene. This time is critical and is often known as “The Golden Hour” due to its importance in saving lives (Helsloot & Ruitenberg 2004).

Contrary to the popular image portrayed by the media at disaster sites Helsloot and Ruitenberg (2004) found that “citizens often prove to be the most effective emergency personnel” and that “disaster evaluation invariably shows that that most lives are actually saved by the average citizen”.

The point of this study therefore, was to examine the preparedness and attitudes towards planning for an emergency of a particular group of people. It was not the aim of this study to prove or disprove existing theory as little information was found on personal attitudes and preparations for worst case scenarios. This study could be argued to have provided new data regarding emergency planning attitudes. The main findings relate to the sample group, consisting of people who have a responsibility towards others in their work environment. Once data existed for each question independently, data was examined for links between responses and thus gain insight into relationships between different aspects of respondent attitudes towards planning for emergencies on a personal level.

Age and gender

Simple questions about age and gender eased the respondent into the more searching questions and it was found that the random sample provided a wide range of age groups, with only the extreme (youngest and oldest) under represented in number. Age only marginally affected a respondent”s fear of being involved in an emergency, with the age 60+ group showing the least fear.

It could be argued that advanced age could play an important psychological role in preparing a person for an emergency, since a lifetime of experience, possibly including a traumatic event, may prepare a person for future traumatic events. These may be both planned and unplanned events; major surgery or the loss of a loved one through accident, for example. Elderly people may also have experienced war either directly or indirectly through family and friends; it could be argued that even growing up during a war or immediately post war may shape a persons threshold for disastrous events, enabling them to cope better than a younger person who has no experience of trauma.

Age did however, affect the likelihood of reading the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know”, with the youngest group not reading it at all. The age group most likely to read the leaflet was the 30-39 age group (72%), with all other age groups within the 54% – 68% range.

No gender imbalance was found regarding fear of involvement in an emergency (within 2%) and each gender was equally likely to have read the leaflet, (within 4%). Being prepared in the home by being able to isolate utility supplies was found to be slightly split between the genders; with men more able to isolate utility supplies unaided than women and but keeping provisions of stored water and food were almost identical in number.

This study found that the respondent’s knowledge of preparation and planning for emergencies were poor and that few people feared being involved in a major emergency. This could potentially put lives at risk should a major event overtake local emergency service capacity. This lack of involvement for average respondents could be argued to lead to poor appreciation of emergency planning and its possible benefits. Less than 6% of respondents of any ages or gender report being quite or very worried about being involved in an emergency. Almost 59% of respondents were “a little worried” but a significant 35.5% claimed to be “not worried at all” about being involved in some kind of emergency.

Performance of leaflet

A problem with the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (H M Government 2004), was found to be low levels of readership. The study found that although 58% of people had seen the leaflet, only 31% claimed to have read it thoroughly and this still left a significant 42%, who had not seen or read the leaflet at all. Virtually all of the respondents who had not read the leaflet gave the simple answer of “not having seen it”, even though it was mailed to virtually every household in the UK. The leaflet in itself was found to be useful and informative amongst those respondents who had seen it and it led 90% of them to think about their own families and arrangements. 65% of respondents who claimed to have read the leaflet thoroughly had learned from it and 59% of those who “just skimmed through it” also learned from it. It could be argued that this indicates how education (accurate, relevant and properly targeted), could benefit people by informing and teaching basic skills that hopefully will not be needed, but could be there for a person to call upon should they find themselves caught up in an event.

Family plans

However useful respondents found the leaflet, it did not galvanise action or change behaviour to any significant degree regarding emergency planning, as two years after the release of the leaflet, 89% of respondents still had no plans in place to deal with potential emergencies affecting themselves or their connections. This is particularity interesting as 88% of all respondents indicated that a basic emergency plan including getting together a few essential items would be a good idea. Many respondents should be familiar with the rigid protocols of health and safety within the work environment and yet do not take the same principles into the home environment.

It could be argued that further research is required to determine methods to transfer this basic desire to have a plan into an easily achievable, viable, working family plan. Part of a workable emergency plan could include basic information on how to isolate utility supplies into the home; respondents scored well on this with fairly low numbers of respondents unable to isolate, water, gas and electricity (all under 19%). However, respondents were poorly prepared regarding basic necessities and almost 64% were unable to provide basic necessities for themselves for more than 24 hours, should their area be a target of a large-scale disaster or terrorist atrocity. Much information on getting together a few basics is available on various emergency preparation web pages, The London Borough of Hillingdon (2006) amongst them and yet this study found that virtually all of the respondents did not take this most basic of common sense advice.

Information

It could be argued that the primary objective of any publicity campaign is to raise awareness of the information being presented or in other words, to educate the recipient. This leads to areas outside the scope of this study; that of effective promotion or advertising, coupled with efficient targeting of appropriate people for an education program, children in school for example.

Questions about wider sources of accurate information about emergency preparedness, revealed that 55% were not happy with the amount of information received in the home and 65% were not happy with the amount of information received at professionally. When questioned about trustworthy sources of information most respondents favoured the emergency services (78%), the police (57%) and the main news channels such as the BBC (49%). Trustworthy information from the government was next although much lower at just 27%. The worst sources of accurate information were perceived to be from families and friends (17%); organisations such as the Red Cross (13%) and newspapers at the bottom of the table with just over 6%.

First Aid

First aid was of particular interest, as this alone was found to be the single most significant area where improvements were found to save lives in the literature review. Almost 65% of the respondents questioned claimed to have first aid experience and 88% had access to a first aid kit. Over 96% of all respondents agreed that first aid training in schools and the workplace was a good idea. It could be argued that this bucks the national trend as the entire sample group had responsibilities towards other people, increasing the likelihood of them having some basic or professionally acquired first aid experience. St Johns Ambulance (2005) claim that nationally, only 10% of teachers are trained in first aid and less then 5% of children receive any degree of First Aid training.

“go in: stay in: tune in”

The literature review found that the national siren network has been dismantled and that a media based system is now in place, the generic message from central government for most kinds of emergencies is “go in: stay in: tune in”. However, 57% of respondents had not heard of this message and 50% did not have access to a battery-powered radio (recommended in case power supplies are disrupted).

Limiting factors

The writer”s experience of the whole project was a positive one; however, the project was severely hampered by the difficulties faced in obtaining completed questionnaires from selected groups of suitable respondents. Reasons given to the writer consistently centred on the heavy workload of potential respondents. The limiting factor being that pressure could not be practically applied as there was only a moral obligation to complete questionnaires, it could be argued that overly persistent attempts to pressure potential respondents would invoke the respondents right to withdraw from the study. It is argued by the writer that it is this persistent state of stress and heavy workload involved for many people in today”s workplace, added to busy home lives, that has de-prioritised matters related to self protection from a statistically unlikely event. Zimbardo and Lieppe (1991) termed this “crisis amnesia”, where as the appearances of a problem disappear, so does the inward concern.

Expectations

One area from this study was quite straightforward, in that a significant proportion of people from the selected sample were simply not concerned with personal preparations in case of emergencies. It could be argued that his stems from having a national reliance on an efficient and skilled emergency service that will respond in a timely manner and that rescue is inevitable. Although recent media attention has highlighted various problems with the emergency services, it could be argued that expectations are still extremely high amongst the public and that being rescued is seen as a “right” (especially amongst the tax paying classes).

Statistically and historically, the UK could be argued to be a safer place at this point, than at almost any time in the last century or beyond. This lack of familiarity with catastrophe and good fortune of living in a politically and environmentally stable country may be the reason that the respondents were relatively unconcerned about emergency planning. Beck (1998) also noted that hazards of old were “perceptible to the senses, while the risks of civilisation today, typically escape perception ” (Beck 1998 p21) and that consciousness of risk and activism are more likely to occur amongst the wealthier and more protected groups where the pressure to make a living has been relaxed or broken (Beck 1998 p53). It could be argued that precautions that are sensible and are known to the respondent to be a good idea are simply not implemented due to matters with a higher priority pushing such thoughts and preparations further down a mental list of chores. It could also be argued that the ordinary citizens of many societies are swept along by events that are perceived to be outside influence or control; Aronson (1983) poignantly writes that over 100,000,000, (one hundred million) people have been killed in the last century, through war or famine as a result of war (Aronson 1983 p9). It could be argued that the problems faced in the previous century may or may not challenge people today, but it could be argued that emergency preparation was a large part of ordinary life in the UK between 1914 and the late 1940″s, a part that this study found to be close to zero today.

Resilience

Much is made of resilience in today’s parlance and it could be argued that communities are more resilient today than in the past, but also that this may be due to better emergency services that have better equipment and better training. The writer argues that this study indicates that personal resilience could be less today; situations that would at one time be a matter of common sense could now cause disruption and confusion. Survival skills outside of specialist organisations could be argued to be minimal. Although (Helsloot & Ruitenberg (2004) argues that citizens make good responders, the writer challenges the assumption that in a real emergency everyone would instinctively know what the right course of action is. Dr Bennett (2006) also argues that education gives people the confidence and ability to analyse situations and builds the mental acuity and agility to apply generic theories and knowledge to a particular emergency (Dr Bennett 2006). Page (2004) advocates a mental checklist to promote personal evaluation of the situation and to execute a positive course of action in order to promote life. This can be utilized in the event of an emergency; learnt so that it resides in the sub-consciousness and can be instinctively implemented if chaos strikes.

Preparation

In the USA there are a proliferation of web sites offering information on what to do to protect your family and products to be used in the event of an emergency; special packs that attach to the underside of a desk with Velcro or specially designed packs to cope with emergencies on the road for example. Some commercial sites report a large increase in sales after Hurricane Katrina left many people ill prepared for disaster.

The writer argues that it does matter that individuals are not thinking about emergency preparedness, as the world is a dynamic place, constantly changing and constantly providing new challenges; in the natural world, technologically, religiously and politically. Any or all of these changes have the potential to influence and affect life in a negative way. Unexpected changes in environment can be prepared for by encouraging a new approach and changing attitudes towards personal planning for emergencies. Being prepared is related to empowerment; to be empowered is to increase the chance of survival by the application of a few learnt skills, or to be in possession of a few facts about a given scenario that enable a person to take a decision on a course of action that will remove them from harms way, and possibly other victims.

It could be argued that these findings reflect the level of risk that a person might attached to a train de-railing during a daily commute or of a holiday trip culminating in a tsunami; i.e. “statistically extremely unlikely = no need to worry” .

However, it cannot be denied that people are caught up in emergencies of all types and magnitude on a daily basis, no doubt these people had no forewarning or premonition that this was imminent. However unlikely it is that a person might be involved in a disastrous situation it is a possibility and that could be argued to warrant a little education on the right course of action, especially if that information is already freely available within specialist organisations both inside and outside of government. This study found that 88% of respondents want to make a basic plan and that 90% were concerned about their families after reading the leaflet “Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know” (HM Government 2004).

The final question in this survey was an open ended search for additional insights as to what can people do that might increase a person”s chance of survival during an emergency. Only 39% of respondents answered this question and the consistently leading theme, was better or more education. There was of course an inevitable, “live next door to an ambulance station” answer, but generally the themes that developed were consistent with the main study in that people have many unanswered questions on how, where and what to do, should a large event envelop them. There were recommendations that everyone learn first aid, keep a stocked first aid kit at home and in the car. That there should be better regulation of the media and how it reports disasters from around the world. Some respondents felt that there should be predetermined centres to serve as modern day “air raid” shelters, providing a focus for action. Some, were even prepared to engage in training and exercises for different scenarios.

It could be argued that many people are not aware that the national siren system has been dismantled and that any warnings of impending or imminent emergencies are likely to be transmitted via the television or radio. With so many respondents ignorant of the generic advice on the best course of action should an unexpected circumstances befall them, it could be argued that some could take the wrong course and put themselves at risk.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations stem from conclusions, so recommendations could be a call for more education about the benefits of personal preparations in case of emergency. However, it could be argued that first, research needs to be harnessed from a slightly different sphere; that of psychology, to determine (in a practical way) why some people can be aware of risk, but deliberately choose to ignore it, believing that “it will not happen to them”. Thus, shaping future information programmes, making them more effective and easily disseminated to a wide audience.

The results of this study indicate that there is a basic desire in some people to be better prepared in case of emergency. However, the study also found that 42% of respondents in this study did not read a nationally distributed safety leaflet. It might also be possible that this 42% of respondents, would have gained the most from this leaflet, had they read it.

Therefore, if adults are a difficult prospect for retrospective education about the benefits of emergency planning, this puts the onus on children, who come with the added benefit of being a largely captive audience while at school. At present, some common sense skills are learnt by a kind of osmosis, from parents, friends, teachers, magazines or even watching medical dramas on the television. A forum to gather all of the advice from the various agencies into one place exists in school. To better prepare “future” citizens and increase their “resilience” the following might be implemented: Integrated practical information from all emergency service agencies in schools, including specialists such as coast guard, rescue teams lifeguards etc. Information from government agencies such as the Home Office and other emergency planning forums.

First aid training in schools, possibly utilising external expertise such as the Red Cross and St Johns Ambulance. A more “visible” emergency planning department at local authority level, all local authorities have such a department, but it could be argued that the public are rarely aware of them or what they are responsible for. Information from government on current protocols when an event occurs, i.e. what to expect, where to go and what to listen out for; all from a personal perspective. Possibly delivered through local authorities, libraries, agencies or local newspapers.

As the CEO of the American Red Cross, Evans (2003) states:- “Being prepared for disaster is no longer an option; it is a must.”

Please feel free to contact me, I welcome comments, suggestions, stories or alternative uses for your personal information file, please click here to send me an email or leave a comment.

This is just a quick screen shot of the personal information template open in Microsoft WORD

And here it is again in Google Docs!

And not leastly here in Microsoft Excel.

All work equally well and it really is a matter of personal choice and which ever program you are most comfortable and familiar with.

Stay well